Partin Tables cannot accurately predict the pathological stage at radical prostatectomy

European Journal of Surgical Oncology

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 123-128

  Bhojani, N ^a,b   Ahyai, S ^c   Graefen, M ^c   Capitanio, U ^a,d   Suardi, N ^a,d   Shariat, S F ^a   Jeldres, C ^a,b   Erbersdobler, A ^c   Schlomm, T ^c   Haese, A ^c   Steuber, T ^c   Heinzer, H ^c   Montorsi, F ^d   Huland, H ^c   Karakiewicz, P I ^a,b  

^a CENTRE HOSPITALIER DE L UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG   (Germany)

^d VITA SALUTE SAN RAFFAELE UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

Author keywords

Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy; Staging

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CANCER STAGING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; HUMAN; LYMPHADENECTOMY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PARTIN TABLE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; VALIDATION PROCESS;

FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; NEOPLASM STAGING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROC CURVE;

EID: 58149487624     PISSN: 07487983     EISSN: 15322157     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2008.07.013     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Chun F.K., Briganti A., Shariat S.F., et al. Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation. BJU Int 98 (2006) 329-334
2. Steuber T., Graefen M., Haese A., et al. Validation of a nomogram for prediction of side specific extracapsular extension at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 175 (2006) 939-944 [discussion 944]
3. Zorn K.C., Gallina A., Hutterer G.C., et al. External validation of a nomogram for prediction of side-specific extracapsular extension at robotic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 21 (2007) 1345-1352
4. Gallina A., Chun F.K., Briganti A., et al. Development and split-sample validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of seminal vesicle invasion at radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 52 (2007) 98-105
5. Capitanio U., Jeldres C., Shariat S.F., and Karakiewicz P. Clinicians are most familiar with nomograms and rate their clinical usefulness highest, look-up tables are second best. Eur Urol (2008)
6. Chun F.K., Steuber T., Erbersdobler A., et al. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol 49 (2006) 820-826
7. Briganti A., Chun F.K., Salonia A., et al. Validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of lymph node invasion among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and an extended pelvic lymphadenectomy. Eur Urol 49 (2006) 1019-1026 [discussion 1026-1017]
8. Briganti A., Chun F.K., Salonia A., et al. A nomogram for staging of exclusive nonobturator lymph node metastases in men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 51 (2007) 112-119 [discussion 119-20]
9. Capitanio U., Scattoni V., Freschi M., et al. Radical prostatectomy for incidental (stage t1a-t1b) prostate cancer: analysis of predictors for residual disease and biochemical recurrence. Eur Urol 54 (2008) 118-125
10. Chun F.K., Haese A., Ahyai S.A., et al. Critical assessment of tools to predict clinically insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy in contemporary men. Cancer (2008)
11. Partin A.W., Yoo J., Carter H.B., et al. The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol 150 (1993) 110-114
12. Partin A.W., Kattan M.W., Subong E.N., et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update. JAMA 277 (1997) 1445-1451
13. Partin A.W., Mangold L.A., Lamm D.M., Walsh P.C., Epstein J.I., and Pearson J.P. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology 58 (2001) 843-848
14. Makarov D.V., Trock B.J., Humphreys E.B., et al. Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Urology 69 (2007) 1095-1101
15. Capitanio U., Karakiewicz P.I., Jeldres C., et al. Suspected clinical T3 prostate cancer is associated with a high rate of negative extended biopsies: clinical implications. Eur Urol (2008)
16. Kattan M.W. Re: Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin Tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Eur Urol 52 (2007) 1528
17. Briganti A., Capitanio U., Chun F.K., et al. Impact of Surgical volume on the rate of lymph node metastases in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection for clinically localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol (2008)
18. Joniau S., Hsu C.Y., Lerut E., et al. A pretreatment table for the prediction of final histopathology after radical prostatectomy in clinical unilateral T3a prostate cancer. Eur Urol 51 (2007) 388-394 [discussion 395-386]
19. Penson D.F., Grossfeld G.D., Li Y.P., Henning J.M., Lubeck D.P., and Carroll P.R. How well does the Partin nomogram predict pathological stage after radical prostatectomy in a community based population? Results of the cancer of the prostate strategic urological research endeavor. J Urol 167 (2002) 1653-1657 [discussion 1657-8]
20. Karakiewicz P.I., Lattouf J.B., Perrotte P., et al. Validation of 1997 Partin Tables' lymph node invasion predictions in men treated with radical prostatectomy in Montreal Quebec. Can J Urol 12 (2005) 2588-2592
21. Steuber T., Karakiewicz P.I., Augustin H., et al. Transition zone cancers undermine the predictive accuracy of Partin table stage predictions. J Urol 173 (2005) 737-741
22. Augustin H., Eggert T., Wenske S., et al. Comparison of accuracy between the Partin tables of 1997 and 2001 to predict final pathological stage in clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 171 (2004) 177-181
23. Briganti A., Shariat S.F., Chun F.K., et al. Differences in the rate of lymph node invasion in men with clinically localized prostate cancer might be related to the continent of origin. BJU Int 100 (2007) 528-532
24. Conrad S., Graefen M., Pichlmeier U., et al. Prospective validation of an algorithm with systematic sextant biopsy to predict pelvic lymph node metastasis in patients with clinically localized prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 167 (2002) 521-525
25. Roemeling S., Roobol M.J., de Vries S.H., et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancers detected in three subsequent rounds of a screening trial: characteristics, PSA doubling times, and outcome. Eur Urol 51 (2007) 1244-1250 [discussion 1251]
26. Heidenreich A., Aus G., Bolla M., et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 53 (2008) 68-80
27. van den Bergh R.C., Roemeling S., Roobol M.J., Roobol W., Schroder F.H., and Bangma C.H. Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 52 (2007) 1560-1563
28. Agodi A., Barchitta M., Anzaldi A., Marchese F., Bonaccorsi A., and Motta M. Active surveillance of nosocomial infections in urologic patients. Eur Urol 51 (2007) 247-253 [discussion 253-244]
29. Chun F.K., Graefen M., Briganti A., et al. Initial biopsy outcome prediction-head-to-head comparison of a logistic regression-based nomogram versus artificial neural network. Eur Urol 51 (2007) 1236-1243